Community members planting willow tripods in front of new gabions to prevent riverbank erosion (Nodir Muhidinov)

Integrated disaster risk reduction in flood-affected areas by local communities (Tajikistan)

Интегрированный подход к снижению риска стихийных бедствий местными сообществами, в местностях подверженным селевым потокам

Description

Climate change and land degradation in upper catchment areas cause an increasing frequency and intensity of flash flood and debris flows affecting settlements and productive areas. GIZ in collaboration with the Committee on Emergency Situations assisted local communities in the implementation of integrated preventive measures.

Villages and associated productive lands like orchards, gardens and arable fields in the lower parts of the northern main slope of the Turkestan mountain range are typically located in the valleys of rivers and streams. Water discharge in these rivers and streams is seasonally highly variable. During the wet season water flow is very high, while during the dry summer and fall months almost no water is visible at the surface and the limited discharge takes place in the gravel of the riverbed. After rainfall and during snowmelt extreme flow events happen with discharges several times exceeding the average of the wet season. Flashfloods with high speed and energy typically cause the transportation of large amounts of debris. These debris flows can be much more destructive than ordinary high water events. The resulting riverbank erosion is in some extent a natural element of the morphological dynamic of rivers and streams.

Land-use related factors have increased the vulnerability of communities to these flashfloods and debris flows as well as their destructiveness. Population growth, the expansion of settlements and the reclamation of more lands for irrigated orchards, gardens and arable fields have brought more people and values into potentially risky areas. The degradation of the vegetation in upper catchments has contributed to reduced infiltration of water and high and fast surface runoff. The riparian forests and woodlands which in some extent slow down flashfloods and keep sediment have been largely destroyed by clearing, livestock grazing and by the increasing intensity of flashflood events.

These problems are increasingly exacerbated by the impact of climate change. The already visible trends and predictions show higher levels of aridity, higher temperatures during the vegetation season, reduced overall precipitation in catchment areas – all affecting the retention potential of upper catchment areas – and more irregular rainfall patterns, reduced snow packs and accelerated snow melt as well as the loss of glaciers as buffers of water flow. These factors all contribute to a higher frequency and intensity of flashflood and debris flows.

These events threaten settlements, infrastructure and human lives, but they also pose substantial risks to the stability and functioning of irrigation canals, cause irreversibly losses of productive lands and thus threaten livelihoods of farmers and food security.

The approach brought together the Committee of Emergency Situations, affected local people and the administrative communities, the mahalla committees, which represent the inhabitants of one village or a section of a larger village. These institutions are called communal self-governance structures, but are subordinated to the government as they are reporting to the sub-district or jamoat. Assisted by experts provided by the project, the situation was jointly analyzed; risks identified and integrated intervention planned. Typically the interventions consisted of a combination of “grey” (i.e. constructive structures) and “green” (i.e. protective vegetation) measures. Most of the upper catchment areas belong to different communities, often to different districts and substantial parts are located in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. Therefore addressing the degradation of these areas and a reduction of disaster risk through integrated watershed management in the entire catchments was rarely possible.

The project assisted with technical planning, construction supervision, purchase and transportation of construction materials. The communities would contribute about 30% of the overall costs, mainly in form of voluntary communal work, the so called hashar, as well as in form of locally available construction materials. The community is also in charge of future operation and maintenance of the riverbank protection structures.

Location

Location: Spitamen district, Devashtich district, Sughd region, Tajikistan

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 69.16128, 39.70231
  • 69.15, 39.74534
  • 69.24329, 40.1278

Initiation date: 2014

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Riverbank erosion threatens houses in a village (Nodir Muhidinov)
Construction of protective gabion wall by community members (Nodir Muhidinov)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
Prevention of disasters caused by flashfloods and debris flows
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Institutional setting: Good collaboration between communities and Committee of Emergency Situations.
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Good collaboration between communities and Committee of Emergency Situations.
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Traditional joint volunteer work in communities for addressing common problems (hashar).
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Communities and Committee of Emergency Situations without external assistance not able to implement effective integrated measures.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Insufficient knowledge in communities about effective technololgy.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Inhabitants of village Participation in identification of risk sites; Volunteer work
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Engineers provided by GIZ Identification of risk sites; Design, planning and supervision of interventions.
local government District branches of Committee for Emergency Situations Participation in identification of risk sites; Agreement of plans for interventions
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Participation in identification of risk sites;
planning
Participation in discussion of interventions;
implementation
Volunteer work
monitoring/ evaluation
Control of conditions and functioning of protective structures
Flow chart

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Not involved in this approach
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Strengthening of community institutions in addressing issues of common concern.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Government of Germany, implemented via Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The approach has been implemented in the frame of a much larger program and the specific budget for the SLM component of the Approach cannot be determined.
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
Costs of planning, design and supervision, costs of materials, transportation and machinery covered by GIZ.
partly financed
fully financed
equipment: machinery

construction: stone

Gabion nets

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?

People mobilized to address common issues.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Grey and geeen measures for prevention of riverbank erosion

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?

Combination of financial and technical support by GIZ and contributions in form of work and locally available materials by community members.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

Community members capable of replicating the technologies.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

Committee of Emergency Situations capable of replicating the technologies.

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

Involvement of young people in joint work

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

Reduced risk of destruction of irrigation infrastructure and of loss of productive lands.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

Reduced risk of destructive impacts of flashfloods and debris flows, which due to climate change are increasing in frequency and intensity.

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Reduced disaster risk
  • Availability of wood from green measures
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Same as land-users
  • Improved collaboration at local level and strengthened institutions
  • Ownership feeling among community members
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • None
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • None

References

Compiler
  • Stefan Michel
Editors
Reviewer
  • Umed Vahobov
Date of documentation: Jan. 15, 2019
Last update: Jan. 31, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International